From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36614C433E1 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:58:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 095D820775 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:58:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="TGaisiGi" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 095D820775 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k0LRR-0008C0-0t; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:58:33 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k0LRQ-0008Bv-Kc for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:58:32 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: 822dafce-d0b0-11ea-8b1b-bc764e2007e4 Received: from esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.155.168]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 822dafce-d0b0-11ea-8b1b-bc764e2007e4; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:58:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1595926710; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=sUvuB+SQAcx3A3Ddb7pG9ZwS7HsLQy3Nggy8p7965gE=; b=TGaisiGi0ePOPNkXq/Jj2AzhT8vFjD84xrrlU0IjrYhthTVj2Mwv7TOA YCJq0adrJsExUhApIzhFk+AH3EHM9FnSQDJRVfOPfX/YqwBkjuNR8E91t LX8KezvnjWTXIS4FEiT7UhvAHKFFahrWP0lxuIRQVcxiitNEn5x0MgJXP s=; Authentication-Results: esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none IronPort-SDR: /bZkDnZuXjo0SWY7PwnfnFfGpru2vPR112n/AkE305ku0uelirJMTzl1CNgdCMVtSFeIrfCMas 1tFUaiYgODKpcIbW7ltXyvR/Ie4ojvYaRMvJwT1r2pJ2TtTags9CgqoKPUVqd8Y9Y09tNKDRg9 LMZHN6Ge9XQCD8ckxOmixPSKMBSZg3hBNJ4vfWIRUORJRDhU18AcJAtoLSak+lKW9skwRbCea+ QcHDVfT4eKoODdhezggYh6X+mYxb4dNIHNbT0gR1jrsne4mJ0ce+U9XnpDfcXprbf+Xv4RakOq dwA= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 23515422 X-Ironport-Server: esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,405,1589256000"; d="scan'208";a="23515422" Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:58:15 +0200 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Eslam Elnikety Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/vhpet: Fix type size in timer_int_route_valid Message-ID: <20200728085815.GY7191@Air-de-Roger> References: <20200728083357.77999-1-elnikety@amazon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200728083357.77999-1-elnikety@amazon.com> X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS02.citrite.net (10.69.22.113) To AMSPEX02CL02.citrite.net (10.69.22.126) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Andrew Cooper , Wei Liu , Jan Beulich , Paul Durrant Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 08:33:57AM +0000, Eslam Elnikety wrote: > The macro timer_int_route_cap evalutes to a 64 bit value. Extend the > size of left side of timer_int_route_valid to match. I'm very dull with this things, so forgive me. Isn't the left side just promoted to an unsigned 64bit value? Also timer_int_route will strictly be <= 31, which makes the shift safe? I'm not opposed to switching to use unsigned long, but I think I'm not understanding the issue. Thanks, Roger.